1. The Defendant’s Claw Firm’s reimbursement contract (No. 1488) drafted by the C Law Firm on October 1, 2009 with respect to the Plaintiff is a debt reimbursement contract.

The Plaintiff, on July 8, 2009, paid the Defendant a down payment of KRW 162 million in the construction cost, and KRW 40 million in the first intermediate payment of KRW 50 million in the second intermediate payment of KRW 30 million in the remainder after completion of the external tin work, and upon completion of the work, agreed to pay KRW 30 million in the remaining amount of KRW 30 million in the document of completion of the work. The Plaintiff, on September 16, 2009, paid KRW 130 million in the above construction cost to the Defendant until September 16, 2009 when submitting the document of completion of the work. The Plaintiff, on October 1, 2009, concluded to pay KRW 50 million in the notarial deed to the Defendant for replacement of KRW 162 million in the construction cost, and the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 30 million in the notarial deed to the Defendant by 200 million in the notarial deed, and the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 200 million in the notarial deed to the Defendant 300 million in the 2.2 million.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff paid 32 million won out of the debt based on the notarial deed of this case to the defendant, and 2.5 million won, which was deferred as the repair cost, was extinguished due to the non-performance of the condition. Thus, it is judged that all obligations based on the notarial deed of this case were extinguished.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant has a debt of KRW 40,000 per ordinary wage of KRW 40,00 and KRW 4,540,00,000 and the unpaid amount of KRW 2.5,540,00,00 with additional construction cost of KRW 38,000. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above additional construction cost was spent or there was an agreement thereon, and as seen earlier, the defendant's argument is without merit.

Therefore, it is true.